University of Glasgow
Organisational Structures: Proposals for Change
Executive Summary
This paper sets out current proposals for organisational change to best position the University
of Glasgow for the future. It is recognised that restructuring in itself will not ‘
enhance our
position as one of the world’s great, broad based, research intensive universities, second to
none in Scotland’ (vision for Glasgow; draft strategic plan 2010 and beyond). However, it is a
key step which will enable a range of developments to be delivered in the context of a new
strategic plan, improved systems and service support, improved support for staff throughout
their careers and more effective recognition and reward procedures.
This paper sets out the drivers for change and opportunities and benefits to be realised as a
result of restructuring together with objectives against which to measure the success of the
proposals. It also outlines key risks and costs. A wide consultation was completed over
October and November 2009 and feedback received is summarised. Feedback indicated
good support for the four College structure and devolution of key services. There was concern
raised about aspects of the School structure which primarily related to the potential for subject
disciplines to lose their identity in larger Schools. The detailed Schools structures will be
agreed by SMG at its meeting on 12 January 2010, but current indicative structures are
described in this document. Initial indications of how the new Colleges will be supported is
given although it is recognised that this will be fully developed as part of the implementation
phase from January to July 2010 should the proposals be agreed by Court. Finally, an outline
timetable is included together with a number of appendices.
1.
Introduction and background
For the last 8 years the University has operated with 10 budget units, comprising nine
Faculties and University Services. During these years the University has grown incrementally
and improved its performance in many of its key performance indicators. The University has
performed very well in terms of student satisfaction (as measured by the National Student
Survey [NSS] and the International Student Barometer [ISB]), has a good student staff ratio,
high entry standards, attracts significant research income, produces research of high quality
and has grown its overseas and postgraduate student populations. In the last 4 years we
have broadly risen in the Leagues Tables to sit within the top 20 in the UK and the top 100 in
the world.
The University has ambitions to be in the world’s top 50 Universities, ‘second to none in
Scotland’. To achieve this we need to make a step-change in some areas of activity.
Compared to those Universities currently in the world’s top 50 we have relatively poor
international and postgraduate student numbers, our research is not published consistently in
journals with high impact factors, we have a gap in high-end research outputs, and our
research capability is not regarded as highly by our peers as we believe our citations suggest
it should be.
An initial paper1 proposing a restructuring of Faculties and Departments as a critical step to
enable the University to reach its ambition was presented to Court on 7 October 2009 and,
following approval in principle, circulated widely in the University for comment.
1 http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_133028_en.pdf
1
The original paper proposed:
• Restructuring the academic budgetary units from 9 Faculties to 4 Colleges
• Reducing the number of academic operational units from 45 Departments to 20-25
Schools
• Providing dedicated administrative support (academic, Human Resources [HR],
finance, research) to the Heads of College
A consultation process has taken place with the University community since then, involving
open meetings, use of existing governance structures (e.g. Faculty Management Groups
[FMGs], Faculty meetings, Heads of Graduate School Forum, Learning and Teaching
Committee), and targeted meetings. In addition comments were invited on the proposals
more generally by email ([email address]). The project to develop and take forward
the restructuring proposals is being overseen by the Senior Management Group [SMG]. A
Project Board has been established together with a small Project Team as follows:
Project Board
Professor Andrea Nolan (Senior Vice-Principal and Project leader)
Professor Steve Beaumont (Vice-Principal Research & Enterprise)
Professor Neal Juster (Vice-Principal Strategy and Resources)
Mr Robert Fraser (Director of Finance)
Mr Ian Black (Director of Human Resources)
Dr Dorothy Welch (Deputy Secretary and Project Manager)
Ms Susan Stewart (Director of corporate Communications)
Mr David Newall (Secretary of Court and Director of Administration)
Mr David Ross (Court member)
Mr David Anderson (Court member)
Professor Muffy Calder (Senate Assessor on Court)
Ms Laura Laws (SRC President)
Mr David Anderson (UCU representative)
Mrs Margaret Ann McParland (Unison representative)
Project Co-ordinator (Secretary) - Wendy Muir
Project Team
Project Director
Professor Andrea Nolan
Project Manager
Dr Dorothy Welch
Project Co-ordinator
Ms Wendy Muir
HR Officer
Mr David Tedman
Communications Officer
Mr Ray McHugh
2.
Drivers for change
Major changes in the external environment have occurred, particularly recently. The Higher
Education (HE) market has become significantly more competitive as universities seek to
promote their reach and reputation nationally and internationally. Competition for funding,
talented students and staff has intensified at all levels, and we are competing in an
international arena.
Research: The research funding landscape is becoming increasingly competitive as research
funders react to the introduction of full economic costing, exchange rate movements,
government demands for more strategic research that addresses major societal challenges
and research that has ‘impact’. The effect of the recession is also being felt. Research
charities have already reduced their funding and this has increased the volume of applications
to research councils. Furthermore, despite assurances to the contrary, it cannot be
guaranteed that research council budgets will be sustained in future. The Scottish
Government has made it clear that Universities are expected to contribute to increased
economic growth by working in partnership with other agencies, industry, and policy makers
to deliver economically valuable outcomes. A significant stream of funding has been re-
directed at this objective.
2
The effect of these changes is to increase funding to i) individuals of the highest calibre ii)
initiatives which respond to funder priorities iii) interdisciplinary research teams, and iv)
universities capable of setting strategic priorities in partnership with funders (including
industry and Regional Development Agencies [RDAs]) on a broad front.
Education: The potential impact of changes externally on education is less clear; change is
happening on many fronts. Students and their families from regions where Glasgow recruits
its ‘home’ student population are likely to have less available income, and graduate
employment generally is likely to be volatile. Demographic data indicate that Universities
throughout the UK, and particularly in Scotland will be competing for a reducing school-
leaving population from 2012 onwards. The impact of fees in parts of the UK has given a
voice to students that was previously less well heard and so their demands for better ‘value’
are being heard by government – thus contact hours, employment prospects, student facilities
and student satisfaction are openly and widely discussed. While in Scotland the alignment of
SFC funding to support the Government purpose suggests more focus on work based
learning and skills development that match economic need.
The downturn in the economy has the potential to increase the demand for postgraduate
training from students at home and abroad as students seek to differentiate themselves for
potential employers. The value of Postgraduate Taught (PGT) degrees must be evident in
terms of the benefit they bring to students’ career prospects and, in particular, they must be
valued by employers. Glasgow does not perform well compared to its peers in the Russell
Group in terms of its postgraduate student population and its PGT programme provision. This
is clearly an area for growth and development.
Internationalisation: Internationalisation is the watchword of most progressive Universities,
both in the UK and around the world. Glasgow faces competition on a number of fronts:
locally in Glasgow, nationally in Scotland and throughout the UK, and internationally from
other leading universities. The UK has an excellent reputation for quality in education and
currently recruits 11% of the total mobile student market internationally. Sustaining this in to
the future will be a challenge. There is significantly increased competition for this mobile
population from a range of countries (e.g. Germany; Japan, Singapore). Many of which invest
or are committed to investing significantly more in their HE teaching infrastructure than the
UK, offering excellent facilities, and increasingly programme delivery in English, and the USA
is opening its doors to new international possibilities in Higher Education. Glasgow currently
performs poorly compared to its peers in the Russell Group in terms of international student
recruitment (we recruit c. 60% of average international student numbers across Russell
Group universities), and in terms of our formal partnerships and collaborative degree delivery.
In seeking to be a top 50 University, second to none in Scotland, we need to be confident of
attracting not only the most talented students but also highly talented staff. To maintain and,
even more so, to improve our attractiveness to staff as we seek to bridge the gap in delivering
research at the highest level (identified from Research Assessment Exercise [RAE] 2008)
, we
must compete effectively internationally and be seen as a key player on the international
stage; this is likely to be a challenge given the likely funding scenarios described in more
detail below. Our approach requires to change, making use of and growing our key strengths
and attracting international visitors and scholars.
Finance: All current creditable economic forecasts are predicting a cash reduction in public
spending over the medium term. When the commitment, being made by both major political
parties, to preserve spending on Health is overlaid on this significant cuts in funding for other
areas must be the result. This will impact not only direct funding from the Scottish Funding
Council (SFC) but also funding through the Research Councils, which brings the largest
contributions to overheads. The situation prevailing in Scotland has an added layer of
uncertainty with potential for the Scottish Government to further reprioritise spending based
on local needs. In addition, the implementation of SFC’s Horizon Fund, agreed before the
scale of the economic crisis was fully apparent and carved from existing core funding, is likely
to result in further cuts in existing revenue streams that institutions have grown to rely on over
recent years. Without a step change in revenue generation the net result of these
3
deteriorating circumstances, even if costs can be held flat, will be a rising number of financial
deficits at many institutions across the sector.
This changing landscape outlined briefly above (internationalisation, research challenges,
student ‘power’, choice and mobility, economic environment) provides significant challenges
for Universities in the next decade. That said there are real opportunities for universities who
understand these challenges, can identify opportunities and have the capability, drive, and
flexibility to grasp these.
3. Opportunities
i)
Glasgow has committed staff covering a breadth of academic disciplines that cannot
be matched by many UK peers. Such breadth enables us to create cross disciplinary
teams able to tackle the priorities of UK Governments and funders of research,
including the EU.
ii)
Multi-disciplinary teams can also create new postgraduate and undergraduate
programmes that will educate the workforce needed in the UK and further afield.
Furthermore, with no cap on postgraduate level fees, the opportunity to generate
additional income from PGT level programme provision exists, while playing to our
strengths in research.
iii)
Glasgow can grow and diversify our international student community to increase
income, enhance the student experience and broaden our international profile, reach
and reputation. Glasgow currently has approx 2,300 non-EU students (cf Russell
Group mean of c. 4,500) with a total international population of c. 4,000 students. We
have the ability to increase in a targeted manner programme provision at PGT level in
particular and to increase our PGR population.
iv)
‘Realise’ our brand. There is evidence that Glasgow is not perceived internationally as
well as our ‘actual’ research and teaching performance would suggest it should be.
v)
Reorganisation should promote wider understanding and awareness of research within
and across colleges
4. Perceived barriers to capitalising on the opportunities
o
Perceived fragmentation of budgets, giving little headroom for cross-disciplinary
investment in initiatives, especially in year
o
Poor communication between researchers in different organisational units
o
Lack of visibility of major interdisciplinary research themes at senior management level
o
Fragmented departmental structure has focused academic attention on internal issues
o
Lack of administrative support in some units for supporting development (e.g. PGT
development).
5.
Benefits
It is recognised that restructuring in itself will not deliver a step change in our targeted key
performance areas. However, it is a critical step which will enable a range of developments to
be delivered in the context of a new strategic plan, improved systems and service support,
improved support for staff throughout their careers and more effective recognition and reward
procedures. In this context, the primary benefits to be realised through the restructure are:
Research o
Increased ability to stimulate inter- and multi-disciplinary activities that currently
straddle Faculty boundaries, reducing transaction and co-ordination costs and delays
o
Ability to form large teams for strategic bids and significant programme grants
o
Increased numbers of staff holding research funds (to improve on the current level,
50%). By bringing more staff into clusters and groupings and reducing fragmentation,
4
involvement in grant submission will be improved to encourage involvement in
submissions.
o
Alignment with Research Excellence Framework (REF) thereby offering opportunities
for an improved submission and performance
o
Improved communication of research activities and interests
o
Improved environment and support for postgraduate researchers/graduate schools
Education o
Enhanced collaboration & inter-disciplinarity to develop more targeted and marketable
PGT provision
o
Streamline teaching infrastructure and provide more effective organisation and
management of teaching for students
o
Promote internationalisation - proactive approach to partnership development at School
and College level
Management o
A smaller Senior Management Group where the academic budget holders have a
stronger voice enabling a closer relationship between the Principal and a smaller
number of direct line reports
o
Greater engagement of Heads of School with strategic developments
o
Larger budgets better able to absorb negative budget variances, to make strategic
investments and to make more effective use of any in-year positive budget variances
o
Less complex top-level budget allocation allowing new methods of resource allocation
to support cross-budget initiatives i.e. more fluid research structures including research
centres/institutes leading to greater agility in responding to external opportunities and
threats
Administrative support o
Streamlined administrative support located in Colleges to support their development
and sustainability, reducing duplication of effort between the ‘centre’ and academic
units
o
Better dedicated administrative support for a smaller number of budget holders
o
Greater opportunity for centralised services to provide proactive, focused support to the
reduced number of budget holders
o
Greater opportunities for career development and progression for administrative and
other support staff
6.
Objectives of restructuring
In order to meet the challenges, exploit the opportunities identified, and deliver the benefits,
we must develop structures that are enabling, nimble, facilitate the creation of cross-
disciplinary teams, and have the financial flexibility to allocate resources in-year and drive
strategic development. The proposals for restructuring, creating a smaller number of
budgetary units, must meet therefore the following objectives:
• Remove internal barriers to collaboration and multi-disciplinarity in both research and
teaching
• Bring together academically coherent groupings to optimise the University’s ability to
deliver its strategic objectives
• Provide the best opportunities to improve our research performance, developing our
activities to better align with funding opportunities and thereby ‘future-proofing’ the
University
• Improve communication of research activities and interests, enabling the
development of successful research and teaching initiatives
• Provide the best possible environment and support for postgraduate researchers
• Facilitate approaches to improve student retention and progression
• Continue to build on the high quality student experience
• In conjunction with implementation of the new student information system (Campus
Solutions) improve administrative efficiency and support.
5
7.
Feedback on the proposed model
The initial paper (considered by Court on October 7th) proposed that the University restructure
into four Colleges, giving five major budget centres, with each College consisting of a number
of Schools as the basic academic unit. The respective sizes of the different Colleges is
replicated in Annex 1. These major budgetary units would therefore be as follows, albeit that
the names are yet to be considered:
1. Arts
2. Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences (consolidation of FBLS, Medicine and Vets)
3. Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (Engineering, FIMS, Physical
Sciences)
4. Law, Business, Social Sciences and Education (LBSS, Education) and Glasgow
University Dumfries
5. University Services
The budget holder for the budgets 1-4 would be the Head of the respective College, with
Vice-Principal status. The University Services budget would continue to be held by the
Secretary to Court and all of these major budget holders would be members of SMG. The
Vice-Principal/Head of College posts would be new posts within the University. It was further
proposed that each College would be supported by a dedicated management support team
including finance, HR and research administration.
That proposal has been open for consultation since early October. During that period, Deans
were asked to consider with colleagues the College ‘boundaries’ and lead discussion on the
optimal School structure within the proposed Colleges. The School structure currently
proposed is detailed below (Section 7.4)
While the remainder of this paper concentrates on the proposed College and School
structures, it should be noted that connectivities must and will exist between these units. The
newly formed SMG will include membership of all of the heads of College who will have Vice-
Principal status, and all strategic developments will be agreed in this forum. A significant role
is played by the University’s committee structure in which discussion and debate regarding
cross-disciplinary, often University-wide, activities and prioritisation takes place – covering
student learning, research, and knowledge exchange. In addition, structures for cross-
College initiatives will exist and continue to be developed and promoted.
7.1
Consultation process:
Wide consultation, inviting responses to the proposals from all staff as well as more specific
discussion using existing Committees took place as follows:
OCTOBER
• All staff e-mail inviting input to [email address] – sent
to staff on October 7.
• Principal’s open meetings held on 15, 26 and 30 October.
• Deans consulted through their Faculty Management Groups
• Senate, 15 October.
• Consultation with Faculty Secretaries on College-level
support – 26 October
• SMG Away Days – 28 / 29 October
NOVEMBER
• All Deans consult through Faculty Management Groups and
Faculties
• Consult with students through the Students Representative
Council
• Learning and Teaching Committee – 19 November
6
• Heads of Graduate School – 5 November
• University Services Management Group – November 5
• Research Policy and Strategy Committee – November 19
• SMG – 25 November
• College consultation meetings (one per nascent College) on
sub-College structure – 25, 26, 27 November
DECEMBER
• Consult with Trades Unions
• Senate, December 10
• Court – December 16
7.2
General feedback
There have been c. 130 responses through the email address ([email address]), in
addition to feedback provided to Deans through FMGs, through discussion at University
Committees, and by individuals to the project team members. Over 400 staff attended the
open meetings.
College structure: The majority response has been recognition of the benefits of the proposal
to establish the Colleges as outlined in the consultation paper. In particular, it is recognised
that the existing nine Faculty structure provides some barriers to multi-disciplinarity and
flexibility. There is good support for improving administrative support for Colleges and for
Schools, including devolution of some key functions.
School structure: The area of greatest concern lies with the School structure in some parts of
the University, in particular the potential loss of subject visibility and profile, and the academic
coherency of some Schools. This has been particularly concerning to staff in the proposed
College of Arts, the Department of Statistics, the Department of Electronics and Electrical
Engineering, and the Departments of Accounting and Finance, and Economics. Other
feedback suggested that in some areas the school structure may not be radical enough. The
initial school structure proposed for the Med/Vet/ Life Sciences grouping (para 7.4.2) provided
much feedback in relation to how matrix management would work and professional
accreditation would be protected.
Some concern has been expressed by administrative and support staff with respect to the
process of job matching in the new structure and uncertainty around their roles.
Concern has also been expressed over the timescale of implementation.
There has been good feedback on a range of issues which has been captured and is being
catalogued by the project team. While that feedback is summarised in this paper, the
intention is to make all responses more widely available, subject to agreement from those
providing the feedback. Notes of the feedback and discussion from the four open meetings
held in proposed ‘College’ Groupings are available on the website2
7.3
Feedback on the proposal for four Colleges
The majority response has been a welcoming of the proposed Colleges and specific support
was expressed for a single Graduate School for each College. Devolution of key support
functions to Colleges was recognised as a means of improving effective support for core
functions, including HR and Finance, and was widely welcomed (see below). Some staff
2 http://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/restructure/consultation/consultationfeedback/.
7
have questioned the need for change citing a lack of evidence that the structure proposed
would better position the University for the future; these are in a minority.
Common Themes
• Reform concept at strategic level is impressive
• Appreciate reducing the number of units
• Opportunity to participate in consultation is very welcome
• There are currently too many faculties
• Many existing departments are too small
• Removal of departments will improve management
• Restructuring is well overdue
• Welcome the Graduate Schools concept for each college
• Timescale for change is too rapid
• Departments are important academic units
• Questions over the Head of College/School roles
• Co-location of Schools and Colleges as much as is practicable is vital
• Research and teaching must be given equal value – much of the restructuring
discussion has focussed on improving research
• Need to incentivise research activity – restructuring alone won’t achieve improvement
• School structures should/should not map onto REF subject groupings
• Relevant senior academics must be involved in Head of College appointment process
• Restructuring is well overdue
• Welcome the Graduate Schools concept for each college
• Some comment about location of Glasgow University Dumfries in College with LBSS
and Education
• Need to ensure that mechanisms for ensuring cross College developments in
research, teaching and learning and knowledge exchange exist.
Interest has been expressed in the names of the Colleges; we need to find clear titles that
describe well the work of each of the Colleges to all stakeholders; equally identity (more
clearly expressed at school level – see below) was seen to be important to some key groups.
Titles of the Colleges require resolution (timescale to be agreed). The location of the
department of Psychology in the College structure has not been finalised – discussion is
ongoing.
RECOMMENDATION 1: the University proceeds to implement a new structure on 1
August 2010 based on the four College constituencies as outlined above, with College
names being agreed by SMG.
RECOMMENDATION 2: There will be one Graduate School in each College.
7.4
Feedback on the adoption of a School structure:
It was agreed that the shape of each College internally would be considered and developed
by staff within the College, with discussion led by Deans. The SMG considered criteria in
research and teaching for agreeing School structure at its away days on 28/29 October
alongside preliminary School structure proposals from Deans. The drivers for this re-shaping
were to maximise the opportunities for collaboration and development in research and
teaching and to optimise administrative support. The initial proposals identified that a suitable
target for the number of Academic units (i.e. Schools) could be between 20 and 24 Schools -
as opposed to the current 45. Further discussion on the school structures took place at SMG
on 25th November.
8
Discussions have taken place within and between Faculties, at open meetings on 25, 26 and
27 November and are continuing. The final School structure will be agreed by SMG at its
meeting on 12 January 2010. The following are the current proposals for Schools:
7.4.1. Arts
Four Schools should be formed as follows:
• History, Classics, Archaeology (including GUARD), Celtic and Gaelic, HATII, and
Philosophy
• English and Scottish Language and Literature, Theology and Religious Studies
• Modern Languages and Cultures
• Theatre, Film, and Television Studies, Music, History of Art.
N.B. The names of these Schools require to be decided; work is progressing through the
constituent groupings with input from Corporate Communications.
Within this model, special consideration needs to be given to a number of topics including
GUARD’s role within the 1st School above, the position of the developing Institute for Art
History within the 4th of the above Schools, and the role of ArtsLab across the College.
However, perhaps the largest issue raised in discussion was the sub-school structure and the
need to visibly retain the identities of subject disciplines, particularly where the current
Glasgow department is distinct and/or where the discipline is not represented in secondary
school curricula.
Feedback from staff of the proposed School structure was as follows:
• Some schools are not academically coherent and are too large
• Subject integrity is vital in arts
• Some concern that several good RAE results could be compromised in the future
• Proposed schools will not promote inter-disciplinarity
• Some concern raised about the consultation process
The overwhelming majority of comments (written and verbal) relating to the College of Arts
were focussed on the change from departments to schools, the potential for loss of subject
identity and the subject make-up of the proposed schools
Feedback from the open meeting of the College of Arts (attended by c. 80 people) was
relayed to the Dean and FMG which considered this in light of the School structure proposed
above. The FMG recommendation is to maintain the structure above.
7.4.2. ‘Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences’
The proposal presented to the SMG and to the open meeting of proposed College staff was
based on a matrix structure with four professional schools
• Medical School
• School of Veterinary Medicine
• Dental School
• School of Biological Science
underpinned by around 5 research schools / institutes
• School of Biological Science
• School of Cancer Studies
• School of Cardiovascular Sciences
• School of Infection, Inflammation and Immunology
• School of Community and Population Health Sciences
9
A School of Psychology and Neuroscience is being considered depending on the outcomes of
ongoing discussion with staff.
Feedback from staff in the proposed College was as follows:
• Many staff supported the structure, provided that issues (many of which are outlined
below) could be addressed
• Confusion over relationship between schools and research institutes
• Concern about a research school cf institute
• Concern about professional accreditation requirements of e.g .Veterinary School,
Nursing etc.
• Disease-based research themes dominate the structure, leaving some existing
themes, particularly in Biomedical and Life Sciences and Veterinary Medicine,
‘orphaned’
• Concern about how staff would be allocated to research schools – what about those
who did not fit?
• Concern at ‘ossification’ of research schools
• Concern that professional schools would be perceived as research-inactive, with
implications for staff in these Schools
• Opportunity for better support of academic staff
• Good access to equipment across the College and longer term efficient use of
internal and external investment
• Location of Dental School/Nursing School
• Line management structures
• Concern about budget flows
Subsequently, an alternative model was proposed by the relevant Deans which is currently
under discussion. The alternative proposal is a modulation of the previous proposed College
structure in response to feedback and the timescale for restructuring. It proposes
simplification of the transition by creating four Schools with focus of effort on the
establishment of College-wide Research Institutes in areas of established research strength
and priority. Head of Research Institutes would lead their Institute’s College-wide research
strategy and, along with Heads of the Schools, would serve on the College Management
Board. Under the direction of the Head of College there would be continued evolution of the
structure to secure the achievement of the Research Institutes.
7.4.3. ‘Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences’
The proposal structure of 7 (6) Schools retains a discipline-based schools structure; this was
presented alongside a College research committee which would have a dedicated budget to
best secure short term and long term inter- and multi-disciplinary growth. This structure takes
account of the need to maintain strength in single disciplines, aligned to the REF Units of
Assessment (UoAs), allowing robust line management as well as the need to maintain the
dynamic nature of cross-cutting themes. It is intended that the College should be composed
as follows:
• School of Chemistry
• School of Computing Science
• School of Engineering
• School of Geographical and Earth Sciences
• School of Mathematics and Statistics
• School of Physics and Astronomy
•
School of Psychology.
It is acknowledged that discussions are currently ongoing between the psychologists and
neuroscientists regarding possible synergies in forming a school/research institute, possibly in
10
the ‘medical, veterinary and life sciences’ College. A recommendation will be brought to the
January meeting of SMG.
Feedback indicated
• Resistance to a single School of Engineering, primarily from some staff in the
Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering
• Resistance to Mathematics and Statistics coming together – concern about loss of
subject identity of Statistics
• Question over management of a school the size of Engineering.
7.4.4. ‘Law, Business, Social Sciences and Education’
The proposed College structure comprises 5 potential Schools as follows:
• School of Education
• School of Law
• School of Social Sciences
• Glasgow University Dumfries
• Business, Economics, Accounting and Finance (Business School)
A School of Economic and Financial Studies was suggested by Economics and Accounting &
Finance; the SMG considered that there were merits in a Business School to link
Management with Economics and Accounting & Finance and to considering its links to Law.
These issues remain under consideration, with SMG to outline its approach as a basis for
further discussion with the departments before 12 January.
The cross College Graduate School arrangements and the ESRC Doctoral Training
developments will also facilitate interdisciplinary training and graduate level research
contacts.
A cross-College Adam Smith Research Foundation is intended to promote multi-disciplinary
research. Discussions are continuing on the precise research themes.
An open process of consultation will be undertaken to seek ideas and proposals for inter-
disciplinary research and to establish the mechanisms to facilitate research collaborations.
Feedback from staff in the proposed College was as follows:
• Recognition that bringing these elements of the University together will be an
evolutionary process
• Need to develop mechanisms and structures to promote inter-disciplinarity across
College and Schools in planning and implementing restructuring
• Proposed school structure could be more radical
• Support for proposed school structure as consistent with REF, student experience
and external profile requirements given timescale for restructuring
• Other potential School options not widely circulated amongst staff
• Ensuring attention given to gender/equality issues throughout restructuring
• Concern expressed from two departments about the coherence of bringing together
the 3 departments outlined above in to a business school
• Interdisciplinary work can only flourish in the presence of strong disciplines
• Opportunity to reform teaching and teaching loads
• Differing views on the extent and form of centralisation of administrative support.
11
7.5
Each Head of College will be supported by a dedicated team
The original paper proposed that Heads of College be given dedicated support to help solve
operational and planning problems in management accounting, human resources, student
administration, knowledge transfer, and research grant application and administration.
Acknowledging that the size of academic activity within each College will vary, and each may
have particular and/or unique needs, it was proposed that, as a minimum, the following staff
be allocated to each budgetary unit:
• College Secretary
• Head of Academic Administration
• HR Manager
• Management Accountant or Head of Finance (title to be confirmed)
• Research Manager/Coordinator
A matrix management structure was proposed to be introduced, where the staff above report
on a day-to-day basis within the College and report to the appropriate University Services
Director for personal and professional development. It would be expected that P&DR would
be led from within the College, with input from the relevant central service.
It was further proposed that significant policy and strategic oversight for research, learning
and teaching, student recruitment, marketing, development, internationalisation, estates, IT
infrastructure, staffing and finance will remain at the “centre”.
Feedback on these proposals as part of the general consultation suggest that, in addition to
the above, Colleges should also have in place
• Business Development Manager
• Co-ordinated IT management, although the lead role in this area is yet to be defined.
The Business Development Manager should have a role in developing PGT business as well
as research and knowledge exchange.
Two related matters have also arisen: i) the size and scope of the College Support Team and
ii) reporting relationships of members of the College Support Teams.
i) With respect to the size and scope of College Support Teams, the raison d’être for their
existence is to support the Head of College in leading and managing the College and
developing its academic potential. The numbers of staff in each of the above areas will vary
according to the differing needs of the different Colleges. Some current Faculties already
have staff working in the above areas (particularly in HR administration, Finance, research
grants management, and IT) and it will be crucial to include that activity (together with the
staff supporting it) in discussions when forming the College Support Teams.
ii) Members of the College Support Teams must be ‘owned by’ and managed within the
College; likewise they must have good professional reporting lines to the Head of the relevant
University Service, not least for career development purposes. It is proposed that the College
Secretary should head the College Support Team, effectively acting as the College ‘chief
operating officer’, responsible for the team delivering what is required in the best interests of
the development and sustainability of the College’s activities. There has been suggestion that
some officers, notably Finance and HR, should report directly to the Head of College.
RECOMMENDATION 3: It is proposed that College Support Teams are established
in each College consisting, as a minimum, of a Head of Academic Administration,
HR Manager, Management Accountant/Head of Finance, Research Manager,
Business Development Manager, IT Manager, headed by a College Secretary
(reporting lines for Finance, HR to be confirmed). As part of the implementation of
the proposals, consideration of the precise make-up of College Support Teams
needs to be given on a College by College basis.
12
7.6
College Governance Structures
The opportunity to establish similar governance structures in all Colleges, aligned to
University governance structures, should be taken. A schematic of the suggested mapping of
College and School activities is included as Appendix A
. It is expected, therefore, that each
College will establish the following committees:
• College Learning and Teaching Committee
• College Graduate School Committee
• College Research Committee
Further discussion is required on the need for and shape of other College level committees
e.g. Board of Studies / QA committee, Ethics committee, recognising that colleges may have
differing requirements, and whether school committees are more appropriate for some core
functions. The interface and reporting of College and School level committees with ‘University’
committees similarly requires further consideration. The membership of existing University
committees requires examining in light of restructuring – work on this has begun through
existing committee structures and will be reported on in due course.
Although not specifically included as part of the initial proposals, discussion is required on the
academic management posts required to support the Head of College. It is proposed that, as
a minimum, the College Management Group will comprise a Dean of Research, a Dean of
Learning and Teaching, and a Dean of Graduate Studies. These three post-holders, together
with the Heads of Schools, College Secretary, Management Accountant / Head of Finance,
and HR Manager should form the College Management Group under the convenership of the
Head of College.
7.7
Timescale for introducing change
A number of staff expressed concern about the speed of the restructuring, requesting that
more time be spent on debating how structures might be optimised. However other, contrary,
concerns have been expressed about the impact of uncertainty on staff and students. The
project team is currently drafting a roadmap for implementation identifying the critical changes
that must occur before the 1st August 2010, and recognising that implementation will carry on
beyond this date. The roadmap will be reported through the Project Board to SMG for
approval and will be publicised to staff as soon as possible.
8.
Risks
The risks associated with the project are in the process of being captured and will be
discussed with and monitored by the Project Board. The following present the Project Team’s
initial views of the main risks to the success of the reorganisation and it achieving the
objectives set:
RISK
MITIGATING ACTION
1.
The structure agreed is too
Debate in SMG against criteria for re-organising
conservative, resulting in failure to
schools
realise opportunities
2.
Staff do not engage in discussion
Ensure good communications and promote
and implementation of structure
opportunities for engagement. Discussion in
relevant fora.
Establishment of working groups
3.
Key staff leave
Maintain P&DR.
Ensure key staff engaged in identifying
opportunities
Ensure staff communications on process and
13
implementation are timely and clear
Early agreement of assimilation process.
4.
Too much focus on process of
Clear direction by SMG.
restructuring and failure to
Robust planning round.
implement strategic plan
High profile awareness raising of research and
teaching objectives.
Monitoring of applications and awards; student
satisfaction.
5.
Inadequate support structure
Involvement of key staff.
agreed
6.
Resistance to change
Ensure staff concerns are listened to and
addressed.
Mainstream discussions.
Wide communication.
7.
Implementation of key milestones
Agreement on project plan and milestones by
delayed
SMG; regular monitoring by Project Board
8.
Inability to recruit high quality
Challenging and ambitious job descriptions;
leaders as Heads of College
international search
Wide engagement in candidate generation.
9.
Insufficient resources available to
Ownership by SMG.
support restructuring
10. Alienation of students and alumni
Good, targeted communications
9. Issues arising to be taken forward as part of implementation
9.1. Staffing
Many of the key issues to be taken forward as part of the implementation of the restructuring
proposals relate to staff. In addition to preserving the identity of the broad range of disciplines
offered by the University, care requires to be taken on the appointment of staff to new key
roles and to how existing staff are assimilated. The following principles will be adhered to:
• Minimise disruption
• Appoint the best people to the key new jobs to deliver for the future
• Value our current staff, recognising the wealth of institutional knowledge
• Follow due process
• Achieve consistency of structure and practice as far as possible
• Achieve value for money.
The objectives of the restructure have been articulated in section 6 above. These do not
include a reduction in the staffing compliment and, as such, flexibility will be required from
management, staff side and individuals to assimilate people into posts. Recruitment decisions
must be based on optimising the current staff resources. It is clear that the University
restructure is not a vehicle to address performance management issues.
As we currently have no single policy that adequately addresses this level of change we will
agree a fit for purpose assimilation process. Such a process will be devised in a way that
minimises disruption and affords maximum flexibility within a controlled framework; we are
consulting with trades unions on this process.
Process for assimilation of staff
Following confirmation of the new University Structure, work will be undertaken to create the
substructures to support new Colleges and Schools. This work will require analysis of the key
functions of Colleges and Schools (work underway) and scoping of job roles. Working groups
will be established to identify needs for support for research, teaching, postgraduate research,
and knowledge exchange as a minimum.
14
New roles: In those situations that require a completely new role, a new job description will be
prepared which will outline the organisational structure and reporting lines, etc. and each will
be graded in accordance with the University’s pay and grading processes. The substructures
will be published once agreed.
Some change of role: In those situations in which existing administrative job descriptions
merely require some revision, including any amendments reflecting changes within the
organisation structure and reporting lines, etc., these will be altered accordingly although may
not require re-grading. It is recognised that many jobs will not change.
Following identification of each individual organisational structure, postholders will be
assimilated to roles, initially from the existing faculties that combine to form the new colleges,
using the following methodology;
• Completely new posts: Posts such as Head of College and College Secretary will be
advertised externally.
• Posts with different roles: Posts will be confined in the first instance to within the
same area (School/College replacing Department/Faculty) and at the same grade.
Thereafter vacancies will open to staff from other areas at the same grade and finally
open recruitment.
• Posts substantially the same – Some roles may experience minor changes. Where
there are such occurrences and e.g. 70% of the
job content remains the same the
individual will be slotted in at the same level. If there are more staff than posts, ring
fenced competition will apply as per bullet above. It is expected that most of the
assimilation activity will occur within this principle. If the 70%
essential criteria is not
met then posts will be recruited to in the same manner as for new posts. It is
recognised that existing staff may require some retraining in order to be able to
undertake some duties in their new role.
• Staff who are displaced following the assimilation process will be treated in
accordance with the existing Management of Organisational Change: Avoidance and
Mitigation of Redundancy Policy.
It is expected that in all cases grade drift will be kept to a minimum. In order to ensure security
of employment for existing staff, mainly within support functions, a freeze on open-ended
contract recruitment is being considered. A proposal that all such posts should be filled with
fixed term contracts until the assimilation process has been completed is being discussed.
The practice of allowing staff to temporarily act-up into higher level posts, pending the
completion of the assimilation process, will continue
In addition, required changes to how all support services are delivered are being progressed
through the University Services Management Group. Regular reports will be made to SMG
through the Restructuring Project Board.
9.2
Governance
The consultation process clearly identified concerns around promotion of subject identity and
engagement in the life of the University. While further consideration needs to be given to this,
it is proposed that subjects continue to have a presence at Senate through their Heads.
Membership of existing University Committees requires review and alteration to map on to the
new structures and consideration will also be given to the need for committees at College and
School level.
10.
Communications
It is recognised that effective communications, particularly internally but also to other
stakeholders, are critical. A communications strategy for restructuring has been drawn up
with the following objectives:
15
• To assist in the successful restructuring of the University of Glasgow.
• To ensure that the University community is involved in the process, and receives
relevant information at key points.
• To allow staff to contribute, and feel that they have contributed, to the debate on the
future of the University, and to effectively play their part in the restructuring.
• To produce a well-timed flow of relevant information to staff in a manner that they can
access and understand.
A commitment has been made to maintain the web pages on MyGlasgow with the most up to
date information; however we will adopt a proactive and inclusive approach to communication
in the best interests of transparency. A range of approaches to engaging staff in
‘operationalising’ the new structure are being developed and will be presented to the Project
Board in January.
11.
Timeline
The timeline for achieving the introduction of the College structure is outlined below. It is
recognised that not all Heads of College may be in post on 1st August. Contingency plans will
be developed to deal with this situation.
Date
Task
2009
25 Nov
SMG meets to agree proposals for onward transmission to Senate and
Court.
College of Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences all staff
meeting
26 Nov
College of Law, Business, Soc Sci and Education all staff meeting
College of Medicine, Vet Medicine, and Life Sciences all staff meeting
27 Nov
College of Arts all staff meeting
By end Nov
Determine outline job descriptions for Heads of College (HoC)
Engage Head-hunters
Determine interview timetable
10 Dec
Senate – Discuss proposed College / School Structure
16 Dec
Court – Final paper on proposed organisational structure for approval
By end Dec
Establish Working Group to draw up job description for Head of School,
terms of appointment, and School operating structures – to report by mid-
February
Head-hunters visit the University to consult with range of staff to inform
particulars of HoC appointment
Appoint new VP (Learning and Teaching)
Procedure for appointing College Support Team members agreed
Assimilation process for staff agreed and published
2010
Jan
Working group to determine HoS role and how Schools operate
16
12 Jan
SMG approves School structures
Jan
Advertise for Heads of College
Job descriptions for College Support Teams determined
March
Advertise for College Secretaries; other College Support posts as required
Advertise for Heads of Schools –earlier if possible
March
Interview for Heads of College
April
Interviews for College Support Teams
Interviews for HoS
June
Appointment of Deans of Research, Learning and Teaching, and Graduate
Studies.
3 June
Senate – approve Committee memberships
23 June
Court - Approve Heads of Schools
31 July
Required system changes made
1 August
New Colleges come into existence
Formally switch to College budget structure.
Formally commence new Schools.
Commence new SMG structure.
17
Appendix A
College of ….
Head of College
College Secretary
Dean
Dean
Dean
Head of School
Head of School
Graduate Studies
Research
Learning &
Teaching
Subject
Academic support
School reps on
School research
School L&T
leaders ??
Business Development manager
College Graduate
leaders, network
leaders
Finance manager
School
leaders?
HR manager
Research manager etc
College / School level ?
Teaching support unit
Res
earch support unit
Operations unit (finance, HR,
IT)
1
Annex I
Size of Academic Activity
Student Numbers
Student Numbers (FTE)
UG
PGT
PGR
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Arts
Education
LBSS
Crichton
Engineering
FIMS
Physical Sci
FBLS
Medicine
Vets
Student Numbers (FTE)
UG
PGT
PGR
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Arts
LBSSE
Sci & Eng
Biomed
2
Staff Numbers
Staff Numbers (FTE)
T&R
Research
Teaching
Support
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Arts
Education
LBSS
Crichton
Engineering
FIMS
Physical Sci
FBLS
Medicine
Vets
Staff Numbers (FTE)
T&R
Research
Teaching
Support
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Arts
LBSSE
Sci & Eng
Biomed
3
Income
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
£M
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Arts
Education
LBSS
Crichton
Engineering
FIMS
Physical Sci
FBLS
Medicine
Vets
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
£M
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Arts
LBSSE
Sci & Eng
Biomed
4
Document Outline
- Organisational Structures_ Proposals for Change (Court).pdf
- Paper 3 restructuring Appendices.pdf
